Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pax" data-source="post: 805146" data-attributes="member: 6875">I've come to wonder how various DM's handle the Cohort gained from the Leadership feat, or similarly-powerful "sidekick" sorts of characters (an improved familiar like an Imp, an epic Paladin's equally-epic Mount, etc).Twice now, I've run into "old guard" DMs, who insist "an npc is an npc, the DM controls them, tough luck" -- folks who hearken back to the not-so-good-old-days of 1E and 2E, where a DM (as myth and legend would have us believe) had to beat his players down with a stick, to prevent them form seizing too much power.Bear in mind, I've been playing for roughly a quarter-century now, since I was about seven years old (and DMing for 18 of them, since I was around 14) ... not long after AD&D (1E) came out, in fact ... and I don't REMEMBER DMs needing such beating-with-a-stick hypervigilance -- until character creation in the 2E days, I suppose.  *grin*It just seems wrong to me, when the DMG (and the apparent spirit of the Leadership feat) explicitly describes a cohort as "effectively a second PC under that player's control", to have the GM insist "nope, a henchman is a henchman, regardless of wetehr you get him from the LEadership feat, or by hiring some schlub off the street" ......So, how do most folks here handle it?  If you haven't encountered it, how do you think you WOULD handle it?And in all cases ... why did/would you choose that particular way to handle Cohorts?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification